BuckyBrewer61

I agree with this, but I don't think the Brewers are necessarily telling everyone what specific year they are planning to compete again. What they are saying is that this rebuild will take some time, which it will. It's wise for them to temper fan expectations in order to do this right. This franchise was a complete dumpster-fire for the exact reason that they kept trying to put a major league contending team on the field each year rather than accept that just wasn't going to happen and attempt to rebuild through trades and the draft. Players with value were held onto until that value was decreased or lost (McGehee, Lohse, ARam, Gallardo, etc), and we ended up trading or releasing any pieces of value for less than they were once worth, leaving our MLB team floundering and our farm system barren. To rebuild this franchise as a whole will take patience, and years, that's all the Brewers are saying and they are right. If you have a way to put a quality MLB team on the field while completely rebuilding the farm system by next spring, please forward those plans to Mark A.

For what it's worth, let's look at the numbers about taking 3rd and the traditional "fundamentals" of base running. Used an expected runs scored table (http://gregstoll.dyndns.org/~gregstoll/baseball/runsperinning.html) from a quick google search. Making the 3rd out at 3rd: Man on 2nd, 2 outs: 0.33 expected runs scored, 22.2% chance of scoring at least 1 run. Man on 3rd, 2 outs: 0.37 expected runs scored, 26.9% chance of scoring at least 1 run. Thrown out at 3rd, 3 outs: Obviously zeros across the board. Advantage gained by getting to 3rd: 0.04 runs gained, 4.7% higher chance of scoring a run. Disadvantage of getting thrown out: 0.33 runs lost, 22.2% less chance of scoring a run I'm sure there's someone out there better than I am at stats...but in my simple mind, in this situation a runner would have to get to 3rd safely about 8 times to justify getting thrown out once (gain 0.04 runs x 8 times = 0.32 runs gained vs 0.33 runs lost for 1 out) and about 4-5 times per out to still score at least one run just as often. Certainly doesn't seem worth the risk, but to me it actually seems a bit more justified than I would've initially thought. What I've always found more interesting is the dogma of "don't make the 1st out at 3rd," as this seems to imply a high success rate of "get him over, get him in," even without a hit. As a Brewer fan that has seen this fail what feels like 98% of the time...I'm guessing this is a lot less clear if we break down the stats, but let's see. Making the 1st out at 3rd Man on 2nd, 0 outs: 1.10 expected runs scored, 61.7% chance of scoring at least 1 run. Man on 3rd, 0 outs: 1.33 expected runs scored, 82.2% chance of scoring at least 1 run. Thrown out at 3rd, 0 men on, 1 out: 0.26 expected runs scored, 15.8% chance of scoring at least 1 run. Advantage gained by getting to 3rd: 0.23 runs gained, 20.5% higher chance of scoring a run. Disadvantage getting thrown out at 3rd: 0.84 runs lost, 45.9% less chance of scoring a run. Not surprisingly, you'd have to get to 3rd less frequently in this setting to justify the risk, arriving safely at 3rd about 3-4 times per out to score an equal number of runs over the long haul, and just 2-3 times per out to still score at least 1 run as frequently. This is obviously oversimplified and doesn't take into account other runners on the base paths, innings and situation, etc. But it is interesting that, when you break down the numbers, there is something tangible gained getting to 3rd base, and there is an not-unrealistic rate of successfully taking that extra base that can be justified.

Love the approach Stearns is taking. He has legit high-value commodities that teams want and will no-doubt be bidding against each other for, and he is making it clear the price tag will be high to acquire them. As the deadline approaches you imagine teams will get increasingly desperate, and if no one will offer him good value then he can wait until the offseason (though I hope it doesn't come to that). Of course you hope he's not overpricing them to the point of getting nothing, but at this point...in Stearns I trust.

I agree with this sentiment, and feel this is a bit of a mountain being made of a mole hill. But, part of the business of a baseball team is attracting players. And if this contributes to players in general feeling in any small way like the Brewers don't treat their players right, I'd argue it wasn't worth whatever tiny amount of money was saved or hitless at bats were gained. It's tough enough to attract players to Milwaukee, no need to add to that challenge.

Very obviously a small sample size, but in 16 games (73 PA) of rookie ball to start his professional career, Lucas Erceg has posted a line of .394/.452/.530/.982. Here's hoping he keeps it up! Although also noticed at 3B he has 6 errors with a fielding% of 81.8%...whoops.

It's short-sightedness and competing for "now" without any regard for the future that got the Brewers in this situation in the first place. The organization as a whole was a mess, all for the sake of assembling mediocre MLB teams without realistic championship or even playoff aspirations. The organization is in need of a rebuild from the lower levels through the big leagues. If they are going to have any kind of sustained success, they need to acquire MLB-ready and long-term prospects alike. I am as sick of watching bad Brewers baseball as anyone, but am certainly glad the short-sighted approach appears to be behind us.

Go Beers! Denslow Cup this year for sure.

Couldn't agree more - they just got a starting pitcher that has succeeded at every level of the minors with career numbers of: ERA 2.52, WHIP 1.01, K/9 9.5, and K/BB ratio 3.9/1. If I told you this guy was 22 instead of 27 everyone would be drooling over him. I'm no scout, but to me it looks to me like they got a controllable legit starting pitcher. Oh and a 20 year old AA IF to boot that many are considering the better prospect in the deal. To me this seems like one hell of a haul for freaking Aaron Hill.

Is there someone at your workplace with the job description of actively working with the goal of making you perform poorly at your job? Every athlete does. Also, do you want athletes to compete for your team with the goal of winning? Or do you want them to be only concerned with their own, individual performance because their job depends on it? Limiting salary based on performance is a good way to make sure athletes look out for themselves above team, and I wouldn't blame them one bit for it. Or how about we go the NFL model where teams can cut players at any point and not pay the rest of their contract? Spring Training holdouts for all! I get the sentiment, but there are a number of reasons this approach would actually be detrimental.

On the hook for one more year after this, plus a possible vesting option for another year in 2018 which I think we can assume will not happen: "Then comes the complicated option for a fifth year. According to Sherman, it vests at $13 million for 2018 if Garza pitches in 110 games during the first four years of the contract, and he is not on the disabled list at the end of the 2017 regular season, and he pitches at least 115 innings in 2017. If those things do not happen, it instead becomes a $5 million club option for 2018 that would drop to only $1 million if Garza spends 130 days on the DL during a 183-day period"

And don't sign an aging free agent starting pitcher to a big contract ever again. Please.

Don't know where to put this, don't want to vent on the main board, but man...sometimes I really hate being a Brewers fan. Save a short stretch a few years ago, for basically my entire life all I've really had to look forward to is trades, prospects, and the hope we might not be terrible in a couple years. Don't get me wrong, I still love going to games (been to 13 this year), love the team, love this board and the discussions, but it really bugs me that typically I'm clicking on the Transaction Rumors forum more often than the Major League forum. I know many here love when the games are sparsely attended so it's not filled with casual fans. But man do I miss when the stadium was packed, loud, and the games actually mattered.

Point well-taken, I guess I'm just a bit jaded when it comes to Ramon Flores...here's hoping he proves me wrong now. EDIT: Nope.

I'm not a big Sedar fan at 3rd either, but honestly...what is more likely in that scenario - Perez beats the throw/catcher or pitcher mishandle the ball, or Ramon Flores gets a hit? I actually didn't mind sending him.

Ramon Flores 2.0?

These past few years I've been all for trading away our big talent to rebuild the farm system and aim to contend 2-3 years from now. I love Lucroy and will be very sad to see him go, but I pray they trade him before he inevitably begins to decline. And I am very happy they did so with Gomez, another of my favorite Brewers. But whether he's just putting on a good show for the media or not, for a few reasons I hope we keep Braun through the rebuild. For one, it's hard to see him getting a great return in a trade unless we eat a huge part of his contract. But on top of that, the guy has been through the ups and downs, played on some bad Brewers teams, and does so with a smile and a hell of a bat. I think he genuinely likes being a Brewer, perhaps in part since Brewers fans are probably the only ones in baseball that still embrace him. Whether or not he's doing it for good PR, he says and does all the right things, and I do believe that he'd love to be a part of a contender in Milwaukee again. I'd like that too.

I continue to be perplexed as to where the notions come from that steroid use just "helps you recover" or "helps you train harder." No. Simply no. The science of steroid use in athletes is clear - they make you stronger, more powerful. If we both do the same workout, but I take testosterone and you don't, I will gain more power than you. Yeah I won't just become Hulk by sitting around and doing nothing but steroids, but if I'm a professional athlete training regularly, I will yield better results for the same amount of work by taking steroids. That's the actual science behind it - it's been studied, not just thrown out there by a talking head on TV. Whatever you think on top of that - to each their own. But let's be very clear on the fact of the benefits of steroids to an athlete. There is a good reason they were rampant throughout the league.

Maybe I should know this, but are there rules for holding a player in the minors so as to delay their service time clock starting? If the Brewers were World Series contenders right now, you'd imagine Arcia would be up in the big leagues already, or at least very soon to be. But since we are rebuilding, he will sit in the minors for the foreseeable future, missing out on that MLB check for up to an extra year (or is he already getting a big league caliber check as a top prospect?). Doesn't seem fair to him, though obviously it is what's best for the Brewers and I'm glad they're taking their time.

I'd love if replay could somehow be studied. And not simply how often does it overturn a call, correct an incorrect call, etc. I want to know how often it actually affects the outcome of who wins a game, affects the final league standings, changes who wins a championship. Because in the end, that's all that really matters, right? My guess is it actually has very little benefit while detracting from the game itself on a daily basis. But because we have overanalyzed and overreacted to every missed call ever made, this is now sports.

I really hate instant replay. There's no such thing as an exciting close play anymore. Just "Hmm, that was close. I'll be interested to see what call they make 5 minutes from now."

If we had a bunch of young, talented guys ready to be MLB regulars we wouldn't be rebuilding, we'd be on the verge of contending. This is what the start of a rebuild looks like...it's ugly.

Who is the guy in the Brewers marketing department that approved Christian rock for the Brewers intro music as they take the field? "Jeeeeeeesuuuuuus, you are the waaaaay!" Woo yeah! Let's play baseball!! Maybe the front office is rebuilding too...

I think the powder blue really works with the Brewers' 80's set, much like it does the Royals' current unis, as long as it's updated and modernized a bit. I think it looks great when done right, and really like the Royals' and Rays' looks with it. That said, I can totally understand those that don't feel the same way, and totally agree that most of the old, clashing powder blue set (Twins, Cards, Phillies, etc) were hideous.

I don't disagree at all and this is why I think both logos will coexist for some time. But I do wonder why, if this is so obvious then why did the Blue Jays and Astros go back to one, old primary logo (with very minor tweaks)? And maybe I'm not paying close enough attention, but why do teams that don't have a classic untouchable type logo - like the Rays, Marlins, Nationals, or Rockies - have multiple hats this season to sell more? Not counting the Spring training or novelty ones that every team, even the classic teams, have. Are we missing something, or are these teams somehow missing something that we and the Brewers marketing department have figured out? Again, not disagreeing, but other teams are doing it, why can't we?

I don't understand the people that think we have to "move on" from the ball-and-glove or that going back to it would be "living in the past." I was born after the '82 World Series, grew up with the god awful green and blue stick-letter logo, and my "good old days" are those of the 2008 and 2011 Brewers and the most generic logo and uniform set in baseball. I still wish they would go back to the old uniforms. We should go back to the old logo and uniform set because it's a freaking great logo and uniform set. Period. The Astros and Blue Jays figured it out, and they were widely and rightfully applauded for it - here's hoping we do too. The only reason not to is money, which is why I feel like we're unlikely to essentially go back to the way things were. Maybe they can come up with a decent modernization, but I would hope not much would change. Also, for the record, while I love the logo I think the navy blue and yellow looks terrible. Maybe it's because they look like all the cheap knockoff uniforms in the past 15 years I've seen people in the stands wearing that they bought off eBay from China for $4. Bring back the royal blue, yellow and pinstripes and do it right. I'd also vote to bring back powder blue - while it was an 80's trend, it actually worked and looked great for the Brewers unlike teams like the Phillies, Cardinals, and Twins.